Most recently, we discussed the finalists for Best Related Work:
- Being Seen: One Deafblind Woman’s Fight to End Ableism, by Elsa Sjunneson
- The Complete Debarkle: Saga of a Culture War, by Camestros Felapton
- Dangerous Visions and New Worlds: Radical Science Fiction, 1950 to 1985, edited by Andrew Nette and Iain McIntyre
- “How Twitter can ruin a life”, by Emily St. James
- Never Say You Can’t Survive, by Charlie Jane Anders
- True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee, by Abraham Riesman
Once again, our conversation drifted to the category itself. Before the Hugorati jump down our throats this time, we would like to state that we have read the definition, but it doesn’t change our opinion that this is a catchall category that tends to put apples and oranges in the same bucket.
This year it contains:
3 – Memoirs/Biographies
1 – Book of essays/history
1 – Article
1 – Obligatory Hugo- or Worldcon-related work
and last year, it was won by a translation of Beowulf. Among its finalists in previous years, we have acceptance speeches, conventions, YouTube videos, a project to bring people to Worldcon, a podcast, the software for AO3, and other various things. Surprisingly, no video games, despite the interest from some parties to see that become a category. If AO3 could clear the hurdle for eligibility, we can’t imagine a reason a game wouldn’t. We even discussed the possibility of the James Webb Telescope or various space missions being eligible. (We suspect they could be.)
The very nature of the category makes it difficult to rank and rate works against one another. We were unable to come up with a criteria that would assist in the cross-type ranking of these works and viewed that as a problem with the very nature of the category.
The only thing we completely agreed on was that we were tired of seeing Hugo- or Worldcon-related finalists. This year’s contribution was a rehashing of the events surrounding the Sad Puppy era, which is easy fishing for certain segment of Hugo voters. We’ve had enough of that. Some of us have decided rank Debarkle below no award, but the rest have decided not to rank it at all.
At the top of our ballots, three ranked the Dangerous Visions book first, two chose the St. James piece, and one vote no award based on the merits of category itself. Among those voting for finalists, both works ended up in everyone’s top two.
The Dangerous Visions book was an interesting look into an era that predated some members and encouraged further investigation into works and authors. That inspiration was the primary reason cited among those making this book their top choice.
Those selecting the St. James piece were impressed and moved by the author’s ability to break down what happened to Isabel without sensationalizing it. It was respectful, heartbreaking, and something that encourages us to remember that those are human beings on the other end of our screens. The events described are not something that should be swept under the rug and forgotten. As a community, we need to learn from what happened. Ranking it highly demonstrates our belief in the importance of that sentiment and the quality of the work itself. Two for one.
SF Insiders 